U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
4-28-11
Panels of Speakers and Informational Fair Commemorate Equal Pay Day at Agency
WASHINGTON—Gender-based wage discrimination remains a problem today and a percentage of the wage discrepancy cannot be explained by non-discriminatory factors, said government and private experts at a public forum held today at the headquarters of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The forum was one of 24 such events the EEOC is sponsoring across the country during April and May to raise awareness of the problem of wage discrimination and to educate the public. The Commission is a key member of the National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force, launched by President Obama to “improve compliance, public education, and enforcement of equal pay laws.” The headquarters event featured leaders from other Task Force members including the Departments of Justice and Labor, and the Office of Personnel Management.
“We have come a long way since the days when gender-based inequities in access to jobs and payment of wages were sanctioned by law, but studies show that a significant portion of the wage disparity cannot be explained by differences in experience, specific work performed, education or other non-discriminatory factors,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “This persistent disparity is a stark reminder that the EEOC’s work to end every form of sex discrimination in the workplace -- including compensation discrimination -- is still unfinished business.”
In addition to Chair Berrien, the following government experts presented their agencies’ particular perspectives on the issue of wage discrimination: Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice; Sara Manzano-Diaz, Director of the Women’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL); Patricia Shiu, Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), DOL; Nancy J. Leppink, Acting Administrator of the Wage & Hour Division, DOL; and Christine Griffin, Deputy Director, Office of Personnel Management.
Sara Manzano-Diaz of the Women’s Bureau -- which celebrated the 90th anniversary of its founding last year -- said that from its inception the Bureau had as one of its main purposes the equalization of wages between women and men. Patricia Shiu, head of the OFCCP, told the audience of approximately 125 people that closing the wage gap is not just a civil rights issue, but an American recovery issue. All the government leaders stressed the value of the inter-agency cooperation that has resulted from the national Task Force.
Katherine M. Kimpel, a partner in the law firm Sanford Wittels & Heisler, kicked off the second panel by stating that if women think they are being paid equitably in their jobs, unless they have looked at the relevant data, the likelihood is that they are not. She said that many times women had come to consult her about other discrimination issues, insisting that pay was not a problem, only to find out later that they were being underpaid.
Serena Fong of Catalyst, a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to expanding opportunities for women in business, said that there is a gender leadership gap as well as a pay gap. She noted that over 98 percent of Fortune 500 companies have male CEOs, and that the salary studies conducted by Catalyst show that women at these companies start off with salaries $4,600 less than men, even accounting for differences in education and experience.
Cecelie Counts, the legislative representative of the AFL-CIO, told the group that it’s important not to forget the lowest wage earners -- day care workers, cleaners, aides -- for whom the wage gap has an even more pronounced impact. According to Lisa Maatz, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations of the American Association for University Women (AAUW), one way to try to combat the wage gap is through legislation. She regretted the failure of the Paycheck Fairness Act to pass during the last Congress, but noted that the bill had been reintroduced in the Senate and House.
Following the formal presentations, audience members attended an informational fair with materials provided by a variety of organizations, including the Society of Human Resource Management; the National Partnership of Women and Families; the National Committee on Pay Equity; the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights; and Mana, a national Latina organization.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-28-11a.cfm
Showing posts with label wage gap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wage gap. Show all posts
Monday, May 2, 2011
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
'Motherhood Gap' Explains Differences in Gender Wages
SHRM.org
10/14/2010
By Stephen Miller
Debate over the persistent pay disparity between men and women isn't likely to abate anytime soon, but a new study sheds light on the issue—or perhaps tosses more fuel on the fire.
Motherhood is the culprit behind unexplained but significant wage losses for working women in North America, according to the TD Economics report, Career Interrupted—The Economic Impact of Motherhood. The report suggest this "motherhood gap" in wages largely occurs because of wage penalties mothers experience each time they exit and re-enter the workforce.
"Previous studies on wage differences by gender have found that roughly half of an observed 20 percent gender gap cannot be explained by the usual factors that drive wages, such as experience, hours worked, occupation, industry, age and the like," said report co-author Beata Caranci, deputy chief economist at TD Economics. "The research leads us to conclude that exits from the labor force, most often related to family or motherhood—not gender—are the culprit behind this 'unexplained' wage gap."
Full Story: http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/compensation/Articles/Pages/MotherhoodGap.aspx
10/14/2010
By Stephen Miller
Debate over the persistent pay disparity between men and women isn't likely to abate anytime soon, but a new study sheds light on the issue—or perhaps tosses more fuel on the fire.
Motherhood is the culprit behind unexplained but significant wage losses for working women in North America, according to the TD Economics report, Career Interrupted—The Economic Impact of Motherhood. The report suggest this "motherhood gap" in wages largely occurs because of wage penalties mothers experience each time they exit and re-enter the workforce.
"Previous studies on wage differences by gender have found that roughly half of an observed 20 percent gender gap cannot be explained by the usual factors that drive wages, such as experience, hours worked, occupation, industry, age and the like," said report co-author Beata Caranci, deputy chief economist at TD Economics. "The research leads us to conclude that exits from the labor force, most often related to family or motherhood—not gender—are the culprit behind this 'unexplained' wage gap."
Full Story: http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/compensation/Articles/Pages/MotherhoodGap.aspx
Friday, August 27, 2010
90 Years After the Vote, U.S. Women Still Seek Economic Citizenship
AFL-CIO Blog
by Tula Connell, Aug 26, 2010
Women won the right to vote 90 years ago today. As historian Christine Stansell points out, the seemingly “no-brainer” move to ensure women have the same political citizenship rights as men was contested in this country until 1984, when Mississippi became the last state to ratify the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote.
That’s 1984—19 years after the Voting Rights Act and 13 years after 18-year-olds got the right to vote.
Working women today still are fighting for complete citizenship—economic citizenship. The Joint Economic Committee yesterday released a report on economic advances by women over the past quarter century and found that despite a quarter-century of progress,challenges remain. Certain industries remain heavily gender-segregated. In addition, millions of women are struggling to juggle work outside the home
with family care-giving responsibilities. Sometime this year, the percentage of women in the U.S. workforce became equal to that of men. Yet, as economists point out, the recent decrease in the pay gap between men and women is a reflection of the loss of pay for men, not an increase for women. Women still only make 78 cents for every dollar a man is paid.
Full Story: http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/08/26/90-years-after-the-vote-u-s-women-still-seek-economic-citizenship/
by Tula Connell, Aug 26, 2010
Women won the right to vote 90 years ago today. As historian Christine Stansell points out, the seemingly “no-brainer” move to ensure women have the same political citizenship rights as men was contested in this country until 1984, when Mississippi became the last state to ratify the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote.
That’s 1984—19 years after the Voting Rights Act and 13 years after 18-year-olds got the right to vote.
Working women today still are fighting for complete citizenship—economic citizenship. The Joint Economic Committee yesterday released a report on economic advances by women over the past quarter century and found that despite a quarter-century of progress,challenges remain. Certain industries remain heavily gender-segregated. In addition, millions of women are struggling to juggle work outside the home
with family care-giving responsibilities. Sometime this year, the percentage of women in the U.S. workforce became equal to that of men. Yet, as economists point out, the recent decrease in the pay gap between men and women is a reflection of the loss of pay for men, not an increase for women. Women still only make 78 cents for every dollar a man is paid.
Full Story: http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/08/26/90-years-after-the-vote-u-s-women-still-seek-economic-citizenship/
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
When it Comes to Equal Pay, Who's Worse Off--Women JDs or Women MBAs?
AmLawDaily
April 20, 2010 6:35 PM
by Vivia Chen
Tuesdsay was Equal Pay Day, but women had little reason to celebrate given how far they lag behind men in compensation. Currently in the U.S., women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
"Twenty-three cents might not sound like a lot until you do the math," wrote Ilene Lang, president of Catalyst, a nonprofit organization working to achieve greater equality and opportunities for working women. "The small nicks to a woman's paycheck add up to astonishing amounts. A woman who graduates high school will earn roughly $700,000 less than her male classmates over the course of her life. A female college graduate will earn $1.2 million less."
Also, women holding professional degrees (JDs, MBAs, and MDs) fare even worse--over the course of their careers, they will earn $2 million less than the men in their graduating class, says Lang. "How's that for a graduation gift?" (Lang was writing in a column posted early Tuesday on Catalyst's blog, Catalyzing.)
Full Story: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/04/payday.html
April 20, 2010 6:35 PM
by Vivia Chen
Tuesdsay was Equal Pay Day, but women had little reason to celebrate given how far they lag behind men in compensation. Currently in the U.S., women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
"Twenty-three cents might not sound like a lot until you do the math," wrote Ilene Lang, president of Catalyst, a nonprofit organization working to achieve greater equality and opportunities for working women. "The small nicks to a woman's paycheck add up to astonishing amounts. A woman who graduates high school will earn roughly $700,000 less than her male classmates over the course of her life. A female college graduate will earn $1.2 million less."
Also, women holding professional degrees (JDs, MBAs, and MDs) fare even worse--over the course of their careers, they will earn $2 million less than the men in their graduating class, says Lang. "How's that for a graduation gift?" (Lang was writing in a column posted early Tuesday on Catalyst's blog, Catalyzing.)
Full Story: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/04/payday.html
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Latin America's worst wage gap for women and minorities? Powerhouse Brazil
Christian Science Monitor
By Andrew Downie Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
and Sara Miller Llana Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 13, 2009 edition
Men earn 30 percent more than women in Brazil, according to a new report from the Inter-American Development Bank. That gap is almost zero in Guatemala and Bolivia.
São Paulo, Brazil; and Mexico City - Mention Brazil today and adulation follows. Its fight against poverty, its growing middle class, and its emergence as an economic powerhouse are all being studied as models to be applied elsewhere. (Read our three-part "Brazil Rising" series for more.)
In one area, however, the country is far behind its peers: income equality. In a new study by the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), released Monday, Brazil sits at the bottom of a list of 18 regional countries when it comes to how much women and minorities are paid for the same job a white man does.
Men earn 30 percent more than women of the same age and education level in Brazil. In Bolivia and Guatemala, that gap is essentially zero. Compared to Mexico, the other economic engine of the region, Brazil also stands out: Men in Mexico earn just 7 percent more than their female peers. The same gaping divide appears in Brazil when comparing wages for whites and minorities – a blow to a nation where half the population considers itself black or mixed race and prizes itself on being "color blind."
"Brazil is regarded in gender and ethnic terms as a very equalizing country. Everywhere there is inclusion. This is what Brazilians like to think about themselves," says Hugo Ñopo , an IADB economist and lead author of the study. "What the statistics show is that there are important gaps.... We think of it as an invisible wall."
Women: majority of workers in Latin America
With trade liberalization, economic growth, and urbanization, women throughout Latin America have joined the workforce in droves in recent decades, today comprising about 52 percent of all workers. But fair income distribution has not caught up. In the 18 nations studied, men earn on average 17 percent more than women, when accounting for age and educational attainment levels. In most countries, the gap is biggest among those with the least education. Women's participation in the informal sector, such as domestic work that typically is underpaid and without benefits, drives down their earning power.
But in Brazil, the gap is so high, Mr. Ñopo says, because women are absent from the highest levels of corporate hierarchies. According to Leila Linhares Barsted, executive coordinator of Cepia, a Rio woman's rights group, gender gaps have closed over the decades and women now comprise 40 percent of the nation´s workforce – an all-time high, she says. Brazil has good social policies in place, giving women 120 days of maternity leave. That's more than in the US.
But wage inequality looms large. "In spite of government campaigns for equality, there is a still a sector that discriminates, salary wise, against women," Ms. Barsted says.
While old-fashioned discrimination is to blame in part for unequal wage distribution, there are other forces at play, says Ñopo. The study revealed the same gender income gaps for those who are self-employed – data that surprised the researchers and goes against long-held views that the employer is always to blame. "It's the other way around. Self-employment is very attractive for females who have to take care of household responsibilities," Ñopo says. "Having flexibility is invaluable for them. But the result is this flexibility that they look for in the labor market comes at a price."
Brazil also at bottom for racial disparity
After Brazil, Uruguay and Nicaragua are the worst for wage inequality between genders. In Uruguay men earn 26 percent more than women and in Nicaragua, 20 percent more.
For minorities, Brazil is also is ranked at the bottom of the list at 30 percent disparity (followed by Guatemala at 24 percent and Paraguay at 22 percent).
Full Story: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1013/p06s07-woam.html
By Andrew Downie Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
and Sara Miller Llana Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 13, 2009 edition
Men earn 30 percent more than women in Brazil, according to a new report from the Inter-American Development Bank. That gap is almost zero in Guatemala and Bolivia.
São Paulo, Brazil; and Mexico City - Mention Brazil today and adulation follows. Its fight against poverty, its growing middle class, and its emergence as an economic powerhouse are all being studied as models to be applied elsewhere. (Read our three-part "Brazil Rising" series for more.)
In one area, however, the country is far behind its peers: income equality. In a new study by the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), released Monday, Brazil sits at the bottom of a list of 18 regional countries when it comes to how much women and minorities are paid for the same job a white man does.
Men earn 30 percent more than women of the same age and education level in Brazil. In Bolivia and Guatemala, that gap is essentially zero. Compared to Mexico, the other economic engine of the region, Brazil also stands out: Men in Mexico earn just 7 percent more than their female peers. The same gaping divide appears in Brazil when comparing wages for whites and minorities – a blow to a nation where half the population considers itself black or mixed race and prizes itself on being "color blind."
"Brazil is regarded in gender and ethnic terms as a very equalizing country. Everywhere there is inclusion. This is what Brazilians like to think about themselves," says Hugo Ñopo , an IADB economist and lead author of the study. "What the statistics show is that there are important gaps.... We think of it as an invisible wall."
Women: majority of workers in Latin America
With trade liberalization, economic growth, and urbanization, women throughout Latin America have joined the workforce in droves in recent decades, today comprising about 52 percent of all workers. But fair income distribution has not caught up. In the 18 nations studied, men earn on average 17 percent more than women, when accounting for age and educational attainment levels. In most countries, the gap is biggest among those with the least education. Women's participation in the informal sector, such as domestic work that typically is underpaid and without benefits, drives down their earning power.
But in Brazil, the gap is so high, Mr. Ñopo says, because women are absent from the highest levels of corporate hierarchies. According to Leila Linhares Barsted, executive coordinator of Cepia, a Rio woman's rights group, gender gaps have closed over the decades and women now comprise 40 percent of the nation´s workforce – an all-time high, she says. Brazil has good social policies in place, giving women 120 days of maternity leave. That's more than in the US.
But wage inequality looms large. "In spite of government campaigns for equality, there is a still a sector that discriminates, salary wise, against women," Ms. Barsted says.
While old-fashioned discrimination is to blame in part for unequal wage distribution, there are other forces at play, says Ñopo. The study revealed the same gender income gaps for those who are self-employed – data that surprised the researchers and goes against long-held views that the employer is always to blame. "It's the other way around. Self-employment is very attractive for females who have to take care of household responsibilities," Ñopo says. "Having flexibility is invaluable for them. But the result is this flexibility that they look for in the labor market comes at a price."
Brazil also at bottom for racial disparity
After Brazil, Uruguay and Nicaragua are the worst for wage inequality between genders. In Uruguay men earn 26 percent more than women and in Nicaragua, 20 percent more.
For minorities, Brazil is also is ranked at the bottom of the list at 30 percent disparity (followed by Guatemala at 24 percent and Paraguay at 22 percent).
Full Story: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1013/p06s07-woam.html
Monday, August 24, 2009
BLS Issues Report on Women's Earnings 2008
In July the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its report on women's earnings. This report also covers the earnings of other demographic groups as well. Of significance in the report is that the median weekly earnings of women are eighty percent of the median weekly earnings of men. The women’s-to-men’s earnings ratio peaked at 81 percent in 2005 and 2006. To see the complete report, go to: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2008.pdf
Among the Highlights:
Among the Highlights:
- Median weekly earnings were highest for women and men aged 45 to 64.
- Between 1979 and 2008, the earnings gap between women and men narrowed for most age groups
- Asian women and men earned more than their white, black,and Hispanic counterparts in 2008.
- Earnings differences between women and men were widest for Asians and for whites.
- Across the major race and Hispanic ethnicity categories,women’s inflation-adjusted earnings grew from 1979 to2008 while those for men were fl at or down.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Gender, Majors and Money
Inside Higher Education
August 10, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO -- These are great days for female undergraduates, who with their greater numbers are excelling in higher education, leaving their male counterparts in the dust. That's the increasingly common view, at least, leading to calls in some quarters to focus more on male students.
But what if the enrollment totals are obscuring a major equity issue that may not favor women at all? That was the idea behind research presented here Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. The research links women's and men's college majors with earning gaps by gender, after graduation. And even as the earning gaps nationally have declined, the study says, the share of the gap attributable to college major has grown.
The author of the paper, Donna Bobbitt-Zeher, a sociologist at Ohio State University, used the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 and the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, combining data sets to compare men and women who graduated from high school in 1972 and 1992, and to compare their salaries seven years after high school graduation. (Only those employed full time, following a college degree, were compared.)
The good news for women is that during the time period studied, their average salary increased from 78 cents for every male dollar earned to 83 cents. But when Bobbitt-Zeher controlled for various factors, she found that the share of that gap attributable to selection of major had increased. She controlled for a variety of factors that may result in some people, on average, earning more than others: industries that employ them, socioeconomic status, SAT scores, the competitiveness of the colleges students attended, and whether students subsequently earned a graduate degree.
When controlling for all available factors, Bobbitt-Zeher found that the choice of major explained 19 percent of the income gap between college-educated men and women for the high school class of 1999, nearly twice as much of an impact as could be documented for the class that graduated 20 years earlier.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/10/majors
August 10, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO -- These are great days for female undergraduates, who with their greater numbers are excelling in higher education, leaving their male counterparts in the dust. That's the increasingly common view, at least, leading to calls in some quarters to focus more on male students.
But what if the enrollment totals are obscuring a major equity issue that may not favor women at all? That was the idea behind research presented here Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. The research links women's and men's college majors with earning gaps by gender, after graduation. And even as the earning gaps nationally have declined, the study says, the share of the gap attributable to college major has grown.
The author of the paper, Donna Bobbitt-Zeher, a sociologist at Ohio State University, used the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 and the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, combining data sets to compare men and women who graduated from high school in 1972 and 1992, and to compare their salaries seven years after high school graduation. (Only those employed full time, following a college degree, were compared.)
The good news for women is that during the time period studied, their average salary increased from 78 cents for every male dollar earned to 83 cents. But when Bobbitt-Zeher controlled for various factors, she found that the share of that gap attributable to selection of major had increased. She controlled for a variety of factors that may result in some people, on average, earning more than others: industries that employ them, socioeconomic status, SAT scores, the competitiveness of the colleges students attended, and whether students subsequently earned a graduate degree.
When controlling for all available factors, Bobbitt-Zeher found that the choice of major explained 19 percent of the income gap between college-educated men and women for the high school class of 1999, nearly twice as much of an impact as could be documented for the class that graduated 20 years earlier.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/10/majors
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
AAUW Releases Data to Show How the Wage Gap Varies from State to State
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
04/22/2009
Contact:Lisa Goodnight, goodnightl@aauw.org202/785-7738
Women Continue to Earn Less Despite Educational Attainment
WASHINGTON — To commemorate Equal Pay Day, April 28, 2009, AAUW has released a new state-by-state earnings comparison by gender that shows that the wage gap is stubbornly in place despite the overall positive effect a college degree has on women workers. Observing Equal Pay Day reminds the nation of the gross inequities facing women, who must work from January 2008 through April 2009 to earn what their male counterparts received in 2008 alone.
Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, AAUW finds that women earn 78 percent as much as men earn, and the numbers are even worse for women of color. Compared with white male workers, African American women earn about 67 cents on the dollar (African American men make 78 cents); Hispanic women make about 58 cents (Hispanic men make almost 66 cents).
The new AAUW comparison looks at women's and men's earnings in 50 states and the nation’s capital for the college-educated population and the workforce as a whole using the most recent data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (2007).
The pay gap varies significantly from state to state. For the entire full-time workforce, the narrowest wage gaps exist in the District of Columbia, Vermont, and California — where female, full-time workers make 85 percent as much as their male counterparts. At the other end of the rankings are Wyoming, West Virginia, and North Dakota, where women earn 62 percent, 65 percent, and 66 percent, respectively, of what men make.
For the college-educated, year-round workforce, the narrowest wage gap exists in Vermont, where female full-time workers make 87 percent as much as their male counterparts. Hawaii follows at 83 percent, then Delaware at 80 percent. Louisiana — where female full-time workers make 65 percent of what their male counterparts earn — and West Virginia and Mississippi, both at 67 percent, are emerging as the states with the largest pay differences between male and female college-educated workers.
"Our analysis is quite disturbing, especially when you consider how more and more families are depending on a woman's paycheck as the primary source of income in these tough economic times. Consequently, the issue of pay equity takes on an added sense of urgency. This is just one of the reasons why we're urging the Senate to join the House and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act," said AAUW Executive Director Linda D. Hallman, CAE.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would provide additional tools to deter wage discrimination by closing loopholes in the Equal Pay Act.
Over a 40-year career, women could lose between $500,000 and $1 million. In higher-paying fields, such as law, the wage gap can result in even greater lifetime losses. For all women, the disparity is further compounded by losses in retirement and Social Security income that depend on wage-based contributions. Nationwide, working families lose $200 billion of income annually to the gender wage gap.
"Women with college degrees earn considerably more than women with less education, but they earn considerably less than men with college degrees. As we know from our research for Behind the Pay Gap, these differences start right out of college. Achieving full equity for women workers will require more than individual women making educational achievements," said Catherine Hill, PhD, AAUW director of research.
To learn more about Equal Pay Day, visit http://www.aauw.org/advocacy/issue_advocacy/EqualPayDay.cfm.
http://www.aauw.org/About/newsroom/pressreleases/wageGap_042209.cfm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
04/22/2009
Contact:Lisa Goodnight, goodnightl@aauw.org202/785-7738
Women Continue to Earn Less Despite Educational Attainment
WASHINGTON — To commemorate Equal Pay Day, April 28, 2009, AAUW has released a new state-by-state earnings comparison by gender that shows that the wage gap is stubbornly in place despite the overall positive effect a college degree has on women workers. Observing Equal Pay Day reminds the nation of the gross inequities facing women, who must work from January 2008 through April 2009 to earn what their male counterparts received in 2008 alone.
Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, AAUW finds that women earn 78 percent as much as men earn, and the numbers are even worse for women of color. Compared with white male workers, African American women earn about 67 cents on the dollar (African American men make 78 cents); Hispanic women make about 58 cents (Hispanic men make almost 66 cents).
The new AAUW comparison looks at women's and men's earnings in 50 states and the nation’s capital for the college-educated population and the workforce as a whole using the most recent data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (2007).
The pay gap varies significantly from state to state. For the entire full-time workforce, the narrowest wage gaps exist in the District of Columbia, Vermont, and California — where female, full-time workers make 85 percent as much as their male counterparts. At the other end of the rankings are Wyoming, West Virginia, and North Dakota, where women earn 62 percent, 65 percent, and 66 percent, respectively, of what men make.
For the college-educated, year-round workforce, the narrowest wage gap exists in Vermont, where female full-time workers make 87 percent as much as their male counterparts. Hawaii follows at 83 percent, then Delaware at 80 percent. Louisiana — where female full-time workers make 65 percent of what their male counterparts earn — and West Virginia and Mississippi, both at 67 percent, are emerging as the states with the largest pay differences between male and female college-educated workers.
"Our analysis is quite disturbing, especially when you consider how more and more families are depending on a woman's paycheck as the primary source of income in these tough economic times. Consequently, the issue of pay equity takes on an added sense of urgency. This is just one of the reasons why we're urging the Senate to join the House and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act," said AAUW Executive Director Linda D. Hallman, CAE.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would provide additional tools to deter wage discrimination by closing loopholes in the Equal Pay Act.
Over a 40-year career, women could lose between $500,000 and $1 million. In higher-paying fields, such as law, the wage gap can result in even greater lifetime losses. For all women, the disparity is further compounded by losses in retirement and Social Security income that depend on wage-based contributions. Nationwide, working families lose $200 billion of income annually to the gender wage gap.
"Women with college degrees earn considerably more than women with less education, but they earn considerably less than men with college degrees. As we know from our research for Behind the Pay Gap, these differences start right out of college. Achieving full equity for women workers will require more than individual women making educational achievements," said Catherine Hill, PhD, AAUW director of research.
To learn more about Equal Pay Day, visit http://www.aauw.org/advocacy/issue_advocacy/EqualPayDay.cfm.
http://www.aauw.org/About/newsroom/pressreleases/wageGap_042209.cfm
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Closing the gap for equal pay
Equal pay for equal work is supposed to be the law, but hurdles remain for women
By Colleen O'Connor
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 10/13/2008 08:33:46 AM MDT
More than four decades after the Equal Pay Act made it illegal to pay men and women different wages for the same work, the fight over equal pay rages once again.
Although the wage gap has narrowed since the days when full-time working women made 58 cents on average to the dollar earned by men, women's wages have remained stuck at 77 cents to the dollar since 2001, according to government statistics.
"At the rate the pay gap is closing, it will still be decades before women achieve equal pay," said Linda Meric of Westminster, executive director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women, who founded the Colorado chapter in 1996. "That is unacceptable. It's time to take action now to close the pay gap."
While the statistics
Click on image to enlarge. on the pay gap come from a variety of sources — including the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — there remain questions about whether the numbers paint a true picture of the pay situation.
"It's misleading and bad for women to be told that they're only making three-quarters of what a man makes," said Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum in Washington, D.C. "They are being told they're victims of discrimination when often that's not the case."
The wage gap results from personal choices, she believes: women on average take more time out of the labor force; men assume more high-risk jobs than women; and women are less likely than men to negotiate a starting salary and to ask for raises.
A new study on Colorado's wage gap shows that it persists across all education levels, and in jobs held predominantly by men and those held predominantly by women.
And as Lukas suggests, the gap is worse for mothers both in Colorado and nationally. But national statistics compiled by the American Association of University Women also show women start out behind men after college and never make up the ground regardless of whether they have children.
Fresh case sheds new light
The issue of pay equity has been on a long, slow boil for decades — at least among women who either know or suspect they are paid less than their male counterparts.
But it grabbed the limelight recently, in part because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that women who don't learn of the pay disparity until months after they're hired have little legal recourse.
Three pay-equity bills are pending in Congress. Colorado has created the Pay Equity Commission, which recently released a report on the problem and listed some causes and solutions.
Colleen Abdoulah, an executive in Englewood, did not wait for legal action. Twice in her telecom career, she took the course that many experts say women must take if they are going to close the gap: She got the facts and negotiated. [To see the entire story, go to: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_10693928?source=rss ]
By Colleen O'Connor
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 10/13/2008 08:33:46 AM MDT
More than four decades after the Equal Pay Act made it illegal to pay men and women different wages for the same work, the fight over equal pay rages once again.
Although the wage gap has narrowed since the days when full-time working women made 58 cents on average to the dollar earned by men, women's wages have remained stuck at 77 cents to the dollar since 2001, according to government statistics.
"At the rate the pay gap is closing, it will still be decades before women achieve equal pay," said Linda Meric of Westminster, executive director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women, who founded the Colorado chapter in 1996. "That is unacceptable. It's time to take action now to close the pay gap."
While the statistics
Click on image to enlarge. on the pay gap come from a variety of sources — including the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — there remain questions about whether the numbers paint a true picture of the pay situation.
"It's misleading and bad for women to be told that they're only making three-quarters of what a man makes," said Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum in Washington, D.C. "They are being told they're victims of discrimination when often that's not the case."
The wage gap results from personal choices, she believes: women on average take more time out of the labor force; men assume more high-risk jobs than women; and women are less likely than men to negotiate a starting salary and to ask for raises.
A new study on Colorado's wage gap shows that it persists across all education levels, and in jobs held predominantly by men and those held predominantly by women.
And as Lukas suggests, the gap is worse for mothers both in Colorado and nationally. But national statistics compiled by the American Association of University Women also show women start out behind men after college and never make up the ground regardless of whether they have children.
Fresh case sheds new light
The issue of pay equity has been on a long, slow boil for decades — at least among women who either know or suspect they are paid less than their male counterparts.
But it grabbed the limelight recently, in part because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that women who don't learn of the pay disparity until months after they're hired have little legal recourse.
Three pay-equity bills are pending in Congress. Colorado has created the Pay Equity Commission, which recently released a report on the problem and listed some causes and solutions.
Colleen Abdoulah, an executive in Englewood, did not wait for legal action. Twice in her telecom career, she took the course that many experts say women must take if they are going to close the gap: She got the facts and negotiated. [To see the entire story, go to: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_10693928?source=rss ]
Monday, May 5, 2008
The backward plight of the working woman
The Boston Globe
By Ellen Goodman May 2, 2008
BY NOW the Tale of Lilly Ledbetter is starting to sound like the Perils of Pauline or the Pre-Feminist Follies. At 70, she's the star of a long-running drama about how hard we have to run to keep from slipping backward.
The Alabama woman was just 26 when Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to enforce equality in the workplace. The old stalwart - equal pay for equal work - is so universally accepted that we choose to believe it's not just a law but a fact of life.
Our gal Ledbetter, however, worked for two decades in the not-so-female-friendly ranks of Goodyear. Only when she neared retirement did an anonymous tipster slip her a reality check about her paycheck. It turned out that as a female supervisor, she was earning less than her male counterparts. She was paid on average 79 cents for every male dollar, a figure suspiciously close to the national wage gap.
Ledbetter sued and won her case. But Goodyear appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, where Samuel Alito had just replaced Sandra Day O'Connor. Last year, in one of the backward flips that characterize the court, a 5-to-4 majority went against Ledbetter on the grounds that she hadn't sued in time. The justices read the law through their retro lens and decided a worker has to sue within six months after her first unequal pay. It doesn't matter whether she knows she's being treated unfairly and it doesn't matter if she keeps getting underpaid.
In essence, as Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center said, if a company could pull the wool over an employee's eyes for the first six months, it's free.
An outraged Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination." She concluded her ringing dissent with an appeal to Congress to "correct this court's parsimonious reading of Title VII."
Well, the House of Representatives did just that, and pretty promptly. It passed a bill to restore the rules to allow an employee to sue up to 180 days after the latest unequal paycheck. But when the bill bearing Lilly Ledbetter's name got to the Senate, the Republicans balked. There weren't enough Republican defectors to overcome a filibuster and get the bill on the Senate floor.
Not only did Bush threaten to veto the restoration act, his would-be successor didn't even take time off the campaign trail to vote. John McCain let it be known that he opposed the Ledbetter legislation because it "opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems." This is a little like saying we shouldn't have any laws because they only clog up the courts.
So Lilly lost again. Welcome to 2008. Or is it 1964?
If you've been listening lately, the reasons for the tenacious wage gap between men and women in the 21st century have been dropped on the lap of working women. Women aren't paid equally because they have this nasty habit of giving birth. Or they "opt out." Or they choose jobs that let them get home before the kids' bedtimes. Or they don't know how to negotiate. The fault is not in our workplaces but in ourselves.
The idea that the wage gap might be because of, um, sex discrimination seems soooo 20th century. In fact, the Supreme Court implied that Lilly Ledbetter's lower paycheck was her own fault because she didn't start investigating her employer for sex discrimination as soon as she started her job. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/02/the_backward_plight_of_the_working_woman/ ]
By Ellen Goodman May 2, 2008
BY NOW the Tale of Lilly Ledbetter is starting to sound like the Perils of Pauline or the Pre-Feminist Follies. At 70, she's the star of a long-running drama about how hard we have to run to keep from slipping backward.
The Alabama woman was just 26 when Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to enforce equality in the workplace. The old stalwart - equal pay for equal work - is so universally accepted that we choose to believe it's not just a law but a fact of life.
Our gal Ledbetter, however, worked for two decades in the not-so-female-friendly ranks of Goodyear. Only when she neared retirement did an anonymous tipster slip her a reality check about her paycheck. It turned out that as a female supervisor, she was earning less than her male counterparts. She was paid on average 79 cents for every male dollar, a figure suspiciously close to the national wage gap.
Ledbetter sued and won her case. But Goodyear appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, where Samuel Alito had just replaced Sandra Day O'Connor. Last year, in one of the backward flips that characterize the court, a 5-to-4 majority went against Ledbetter on the grounds that she hadn't sued in time. The justices read the law through their retro lens and decided a worker has to sue within six months after her first unequal pay. It doesn't matter whether she knows she's being treated unfairly and it doesn't matter if she keeps getting underpaid.
In essence, as Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center said, if a company could pull the wool over an employee's eyes for the first six months, it's free.
An outraged Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination." She concluded her ringing dissent with an appeal to Congress to "correct this court's parsimonious reading of Title VII."
Well, the House of Representatives did just that, and pretty promptly. It passed a bill to restore the rules to allow an employee to sue up to 180 days after the latest unequal paycheck. But when the bill bearing Lilly Ledbetter's name got to the Senate, the Republicans balked. There weren't enough Republican defectors to overcome a filibuster and get the bill on the Senate floor.
Not only did Bush threaten to veto the restoration act, his would-be successor didn't even take time off the campaign trail to vote. John McCain let it be known that he opposed the Ledbetter legislation because it "opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems." This is a little like saying we shouldn't have any laws because they only clog up the courts.
So Lilly lost again. Welcome to 2008. Or is it 1964?
If you've been listening lately, the reasons for the tenacious wage gap between men and women in the 21st century have been dropped on the lap of working women. Women aren't paid equally because they have this nasty habit of giving birth. Or they "opt out." Or they choose jobs that let them get home before the kids' bedtimes. Or they don't know how to negotiate. The fault is not in our workplaces but in ourselves.
The idea that the wage gap might be because of, um, sex discrimination seems soooo 20th century. In fact, the Supreme Court implied that Lilly Ledbetter's lower paycheck was her own fault because she didn't start investigating her employer for sex discrimination as soon as she started her job. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/02/the_backward_plight_of_the_working_woman/ ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)